The effects of the culture wars : debating political ideologies in the university
by Beth Anne Crookston
A thesis submitted to fulfill the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English
Montana State University
© Copyright by Beth Anne Crookston (2003)
Abstract:
An absolute definition of political correctness does not exist in the American vocabulary. Every use of
the word has different implications that depend on the speaker or writer. This thesis attempts to define
political correctness and the implications the term has on the culture wars within the university and
American culture. Political correctness is an aspect of the culture wars that has affected both academic
and popular culture’s opinions on politically correct ideas. I explore how the pejorative aspects of
political correctness have affected the term feminism, the nuances of Black English, and the
composition classroom. Feminism and its ideas have been negatively affected by PC and the culture
wars, which have degraded and unfairly labeled aspects of feminism. Certain terms within Black
English have also experienced negative effects because of the ambiguity of political correctness within
the culture wars. The composition classroom is an important forum for such changes and ideas to be
discussed through certain pedagogical theories.
My method of uncovering and discussing these ideas was to research many different sources in order to
see a broader picture of political correctness and its implications within the culture wars. I believe it is
just as important to examine popular culture’s ideas of political correctness as it is to study the effects
of PC on academia; therefore, I used many sources from web sites as well as academic journals and
texts. The results of my research indicate that every source had its own ideas about the effects of
political correctness and the culture wars.
In conclusion, while political correctness has no definite meaning, most agree the term carries negative
connotations. Within the context of the culture wars and subsequent debates about politically correct
ideas, feminism and aspects of Black English have been negatively affected as well. Certain
pedagogical theories and practices may be used in the composition classroom in order to shed light on
the negativity of political correctness, feminism, and Black English, and thus hopefully open students
up to new ideas and expand their paradigms concerning the culture wars. THE EFFECTS OF TEIE CULTURE WARS:
DEBATING POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES IN THE UNIVERSITY
by
Beth Anne Crookston
A thesis submitted to fulfill
the requirements for the degree
of
Master o f Arts
in
English
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
April 2003
© COPYRIGHT
by
Beth Anne Crookston
2003
All Rights Reserved
N 37?
ii
APPROVAL
o f a thesis submitted by
Beth Anne Crookston
This thesis has been read by each member o f the thesis committee and has been found
to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, bibliographic style, and
consistency, and is ready for submission to the College o f Graduate Studies.
Dr. Susan Kollin
Approved for the Department o f English
Dr Michael Beehler
Date
Approved for the College o f Graduate Studies
Bruce McLeod
Date
Ill
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for a master’s degree
at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers
under rules o f the Library.
I f I have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a copyright notice
page, copying is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as
prescribed in the U. S. Copyright Law. Requests for permission for extended quotation
from or reproduction o f this thesis in whole or in parts may be granted only by the
copyright holder.
Signatun
Date
V / f /3 3
iy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. I N T R O D U C T I O N .........................................................................,.......................... ....................................... I
2. T H E D E F I N I T I O N O F P O L IT IC A L C O R R E C T N E S S ................................................................ 8
THE ORIGINS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS............................ ............................................................ 9
THE DEFINITIONS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.............................................,...............................13
THE STAKES ARE HIGH..................................................................................................................................1 8
3. T H E L A N G U A G E S O F T H E C U L T U R E W A R S ..............................................
THE DEMISE OF THE TERM FEMINISM..................
22
24
Victim Feminism......................................................................................................................................... 2 5
BacMash................................................................................................................... ............ ,..................... 2 7
Lesbianism and Feminism.........................................................................................................................2 9
THE LANGUAGE OF FEMINISM................................................................................................................. 3 1
The Pronoun Debate................................................................................................................................. 3 1
THE EFFECT OF THE CULTURE WARS ON BLACK ENGLISH........................................................ 3 5
L a b e ls in B la c k E n g lis h ........................................
4 . P O L IT IC A L P E D A G O G Y I N T H E C L A S S R O O M ................................
36
42
LANGUAGE USE IN THE CLASSROOM........ ...................................................... ................................... 43
TRAINING THE CITIZEN.............................................................................................................
THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO THE CLASSROOM......................................................
46
48
5. C O N C L U S I O N .......................................... :....................................................................................................... 58
B I B L I O G R A P H Y ................................................................................................................................................ 61
ABSTRACT
An absolute definition o f political correctness does not exist in the American
vocabulary. Every use o f the word has different implications that depend on the speaker
or writer. This thesis attempts to define political correctness and the implications the term
has on the culture wars within the university and American culture. Political correctness is
an aspect o f the culture wars that has affected both academic and popular culture’s
opinions on politically correct ideas. I explore how the pejorative aspects o f political
correctness have affected the term feminism, the nuances o f Black English, and the
composition classroom. Feminism and its ideas have been negatively affected by PC and
the culture wars, which have degraded and unfairly labeled aspects o f feminism. Certain
terms within Black English have also experienced negative effects because o f the
ambiguity o f political correctness within the culture wars. The composition classroom is
an important forum for such changes and ideas to be discussed through certain
pedagogical theories.
My method o f uncovering and discussing these ideas was to research many
different sources in order to see a broader picture o f political correctness and its
implications within the culture wars. I believe it is just as important to examine popular
culture’s ideas o f political correctness as it is to study the effects o f PC on academia;
therefore, I used many sources from web sites as well as academic journals and texts. The
results o f my research indicate that every source had its own ideas about the effects of
political correctness and the culture wars.
In conclusion, while political correctness has no definite meaning, most agree the
term carries negative connotations. Within the context o f the culture wars and subsequent
debates about politically correct ideas, feminism and aspects o f Black English have been
negatively affected as well. Certain pedagogical theories and practices may be used in the
composition classroom in order to shed light on the negativity o f political correctness,
feminism, and Black English, and thus hopefully open students up to new ideas and
expand their paradigms concerning the culture wars.
I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
American universities constantly struggle with the issue o f who gets to control
knowledge and education. Numerous debates occur within departments, between
departments, with the administration and the public over what is important in education,
as well as what is acceptable material to teach in the academy. The university’s liberal
education program intends to form the citizens o f the United States, so it is not surprising
that conflicts exist over what students are taught in order to shape them into
knowledgeable and active participants in our country. Within the past couple o f decades,
educators have attempted to showcase multiple paradigms o f knowledge to students, thus
causing a political debate over varying beliefs. Liberals, conservatives, and every stance
in between hold various ideas about the presentation and material acceptable and
necessary for college students to become citizens o f the US. The political debate over
college curricula makes up a small portion o f the culture wars, which is a discussion over
not only the definition o f culture, but who controls it.
The culture war is an ongoing debate over the power o f the individual will in our
country, and how that will affects our culture as a whole. Each individual involved in the
culture wars strives to have his or her idea included in our culture, such as critics like
David Rieff who want to discredit the ideas and existence o f the culture wars:
To insist that there is no w ar should be obvious, at least to anyone who has
spent time in a w ar zone. To insist further that a society which can expend
so much o f its energy on what, when all is said and done, is little more
than a debate over school curricula in a country where most people forget
what they learned at school almost immediately upon leaving it, and on
what are the most politically, culturally, and morally appropriate ways of
disbursing arts funding in a society where the arts.. .are very little valued.
(I)
Pessimism will not help students develop into intelligent members o f society, especially
if people agree with Rieff that students forget what they Ieam in school. College
graduates deserve more credit for the time they invest in their education. A war is not
always fought on a physical battlefield with bloodshed. Was is generally a game of
strategy, with each side making mental maneuvers before any physical fighting even
happens. A culture w ar will not have any physical bloodshed because it takes place
within the ideas o f the society. Rieff disregards the decisions that support curriculum in
the academy, or he would write more positively over the debate o f such issues. I believe
decisions surrounding what is taught in the university are vital concerning the
development o f the well-rounded minds o f students. The core o f what I will be
discussing relies on the debate over school curricula, especially how the culture wars
have shed fight on certain issues academia must confront in order for education to serve a
definite purpose. Education should expand the minds o f students in order to give them
multifaceted viewpoints to help them function in society. But the political divisions in
society also exist in the university system, and as long as the division o f political ideas
exists, a power struggle over the education and knowledge o f our country will continue.
I believe the purpose o f education is the discovery and invention o f truth and
knowledge through the many disciplines in the university, which shows students how to
Ieam and form their own ideas about our culture. Students must be introduced to
3
multiple ideas that have come from diverse cultures and populations in order to view all
perceptions and possibilities o f knowledge. According to Gary Kamiya o f th e -San
Francisco Examiner, “the real purpose o f a liberal education is not to inculcate values but
to teach students how to learn" (qtd. in Aiex I). Teaching students multiple ways of
viewing subjects enables them to form their own values and opinions, which is vital to a
democratic society because a democratic society is based on individual ideas or the voice
o f the people. Students need to be exposed to multiple viewpoints in order to form their
own educated beliefs.
The university curriculum should offer students various ideas instead o f over­
emphasizing limited information and expecting them not to question. Part o f a solid
education is developing critical thinking abilities in students, but some critics believe that
by opening students’ minds to different ideas, the old accepted ideas will be shut down.
Conservative Marc Berley writes, “Students are increasingly taught that there is no
correct answer to any question. They are taught, rather, that there are only different
answers, and where difference is to be celebrated, any notion o f correctness is to be
avoided” (I). Instead o f assuming no correct answer exists, educators and students both
recognize that multiple paradigms are available in which to view the world. The
university is a mature learning environment where all avenues o f discussion should be
open, but respect should be a main priority in classroom discussion.
In order for multifaceted discussions to take place, students need various ideas
from multiple cultures need to be exposed. One school’s policy is to offer these
discussions; as California State University states in their Goals o f a Multicultural
Education, “Multiculturalism does not deny, ignore, or demean such fundamental
expressions o f diversity. On the contrary, it recognizes and respects them and utilizes
them creatively to enrich and enhance the educational experience. It realizes that respect
for the human person requires respect for people in all diversities in which they are
encountered” (77). Multiculturalism and its position in the curriculum holds one o f the
many areas o f debate in the culture wars. Multiculturalism involves allowing multiple
cultures to voice their ideas in the academy, and lets other cultures within our society
voice their opinions, ideas, and work. There should be nothing difficult about allowing
multiple viewpoints from diverse cultures to be introduced into the classroom, but the
desire for political control o f the university causes rifts in the intellectual discussion o f
multicultural issues. These rifts complicate the emergence o f multiculturalism in the
academic curriculum.
One such rift is the debate over political correctness in the university, which is
closely tied with multicultural ideas. PC, a truly ambiguous term, has moved beyond the
university debates into the general media. Conservatives have many explanations for
PC ’s origin. The conservative accounts argue that PC started as a communist idea to
overcome democracy, or that it began in the civil rights movement o f the 60s, or that PC
is the current attempt o f the liberals to push their ideas on the university and culture as a
whole. Meanwhile, liberals began using the term political correctness as a joke, berating
other liberals for not practicing what they preach. As time progressed and conservatives
adopted PC as a weapon against liberals’ ideas, liberals have stopped using the term PC
because o f its pejorative connotations. N ow liberals instead focus on ideas o f promoting
equality for all people within the academy and society.
Conservatives still use the term PC in order to accuse liberals o f menacing the
dominant power structure, and to belittle liberal projects and ideas.
As Nola Kortner
Aiex writes, “the PC label is applied to activities that in some way question, subvert, or
threaten the dominant power structure” (I). Conservatives view political correctness as a
threat and focus on the term in order to persuade the general public that multicultural
changes in our society are unnecessary and even detrimental. Because o f conservative
outcry, political correctness has become an easy label to apply to ideas such ag
multiculturalism, ethnic studies, feminism, and other minority ideas in order to taint
public opinion. While conservatives have adopted political correctness to discuss all that
is evil with the left’s way o f thinking, liberals have shied away from the word, focusing
more on valuable debates with clear meanings. PC has become a word with no solid
meaning, more o f a myth distorted for whatever the user’s purpose may be.
Political correctness is not the only w ord misunderstood and distorted in the
culture wars. H ow and what words are used in the culture wars are a main component o f
the debates between the varying degrees o f conservatives and liberals, leaving them and
anyone in the middle or periphery confused and uneducated about what word choices to
make. The most often discussed word changes are those referring to minorities and
disabled, such as the term ‘N ative American” being considered more appropriate than the
word “Indians” for historical significance or “mentally challenged” being less hurtful
than “retarded.” W ord changes not often discussed are those that have dealt with
feminism and its many beliefs and differences. The meaning and usage o f feminism have
been the most prevalent victims o f PC word evolutions. Regarded as an idea to liberate
women from male oppression, feminism has evolved into a dirty word in some arenas,
making women sound as if they complain too much. Certain groups have lumped
feminist ideas into terms that are detrimental and destructive to the movement, such as
the term victim feminism which makes feminism seems like it is seeking sympathy more
than equality. Another term changed by the culture wars is “nigger,” as in who can
properly use the word and the definition o f its true meaning. The misunderstanding o f
these terms’ meanings and significance are ignored and the public remains ignorant
without open discussion. The university should offer a forum for such terms in order for
understanding and acceptance to happen.
The college classroom offers an excellent opportunity for the discussions o f
language and issues o f the culture wars. Concentrating on the composition classroom
where I have experience with such issues, I will address how the culture wars have
filtered into the composition class, how teachers can and do approach composition using
PC and multicultural theories as tools, and what the implications multiculturalism
imposes on future composition classrooms and education in general.
Overall, I believe the university should be open-minded to the ideas that are
debated in the culture wars instead o f struggling with who holds the power o f education
and knowledge. All ideas should be open for discussion in order for intellectual opinions
to form. But as Terry Teachout writes, “This is not a polite debate over different styles
o f intellectual discourse. It’s a struggle for power, the power to teach the young and
7
shape the culture” (4). The control over education will continue its debate within the
culture wars, but the fact remains that students need exposure to all angles o f the debate
in order to find the have the tools to create their own truths.
8
CHAPTER 2
THE DEFINITION OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
As it is typically used, a conclusive definition for the term political correctness
does not exist. The phrase describes an action that others are doing, or an idea that others
are Supporting or developing, but PC never describes the actions o f the speaker using the
term. N o one ever says, “I am politically correct,” since people do not admit any
adherence to PC because o f how pejorative and loaded the term has become. No one
wants to identify with any usage o f pblitical correctness because o f its negative
connotations. People are commonly accused o f being politically correct, but no one is
proud to be so. Denying one’s political correctness is unnecessary because in politics, as
well in the university, there is no neutrality; everyone takes some sort o f stance with their
opinions. By saying, “I am not PC,” the speaker is attempting to establish a false neutral
position, claiming to refuse to identify with any political ideology. Since there is no
conclusive definition o f political correctness, as it changes with whoever is using the
term, a paradox emerges.
N o one can claim to be PC because o f the ever-altering usage, and no one can
daim to not be PC for the same reason; therefore, any claim o f political correctness does
not exist. PC is a term generally used to argue for or against (usually against) an open
culture, ideas o f multiculturalism, and equality for everyone within our society and
universities. The origins o f political correctness are highly debated and need to be
documented in order for any clarity to occur. To explore this complex word, I explain
the origins o f the term and how it is used in the culture wars within the university. I
explore the multiple definitions o f the term, as well as why those definitions do not fit
into the paradox, or appear to confine the word even more.
The Origins o f Political Correctness
The earliest explanation for the origin o f political correctness dates back to 1923 in
Germany. Agustin Blazquez and Jaums Sutton write that PC “was developed at the
Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923[.. .]It
was a group o f thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem
facing the implemented o f communism in Russia. The problem? Why wasn’t
communism spreading?” (I). Originally, PC was a label used to signify those who
agreed with the popular political ideas and attempted to persuade those who did not to
follow those beliefs. Blazquez and Sutton seek to compound the origins o f the term PC
with its usage today. Obviously a conservative viewpoint that wrongly blames PC for
spreading communism in the United States, this 2002 article does have some truth to it.
Stalinists used PC to signify those parties that supported Stalin’s political beliefs.
Margaret Boyd elaborates on this explanation when she says, “The term ‘political
correctness’ is now used to discredit egalitarianism, but it was first used in the 1930s as a
serious term among Stalinists” (I). The invocation o f Stalin to explain the origin o f PC
only exemplifies how the words political and correctness began as the phrase political
10
correctness. Connecting the ideologies o f Stalin’s PC and the modem day PC says that
the ideas today are communist in nature.
Stalin’s PC explains the historic usage o f the term, not the umbrella term that PC
is today. According to Paul Berman, the term PC originated with Leninists: ‘“Politically
correct’ was originally an approving phrase on the Leninist left to denote someone who
steadfastly toed the party line. Then it evolved into P. C.,’ an ironic phrase among
wised-up leftists to denote someone whose line-toeing fervor was too much to bear” (5).
Regardless o f whether the term originated with Stalin or Lenin, communism is not the
goal o f current day political correctness when liberals attempt to give a voice to all
individuals, regardless o f what conservatives want the public to believe. I have always
thought that ideas o f equality and giving a voice to every person regardless o f differences
signifies the political ideas o f democracy. B ut the ideas o f democracy become blurred
when certain notions are threatened by new ideas o f acceptance and understanding.
PC is also credited as originating in the 1970s. Stephanie Herman acknowledges
one woman as beginning the usage o f the term: “Karen DeCrow, president o f the
National Organization for Women from 1974 to 1977 [...] is credited with coining the
term ‘political correctness’ in 1975" (I). A different explanation o f the origin o f PC is a
common reference guide on the Internet called “xrefer” that places PC ’s origins
At some point in the 1980s, first in America and soon afterwards
elsewhere, the term politically correct (abbreviated PC, P. C.) began to be
used in the sense ‘marked by others adhering to a typically progressive
orthodoxy on issues involving especially race, gender, sexual affinity, or
ecology [..^American politics is being corrupted and diminished by the
doctrine o f Political Correctness which demands rigid adherence to
political attitudes and social mores o f the liberal-left, and which exhibits a
11
malevolent intolerance to anybody who dares not comply with them. (I)
Specifically attacking liberals with their definition o f PC, “xrefer” swings to the Right in
order to attack liberals for attempting to give voice to all individuals within our society.
In fact, most definitions o f political correctness come from conservative voices.
One such voice is an even more obvious attack from Philip Atkinson which also
attempts to date PC ’s origins:
Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in
the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas,
expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be
forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be
punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until
it became unwritten and written law within the community. With
those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct
becoming the target o f persecution by the mob, if not prosecution
by the state. (I)
There are so many misconceptions in this statement that I feel I must break it down piece
by piece. The ambiguity that is laced through this statement is obvious in the failure to
give credit to any sources or define certain ideas. Atkinson dates PC as having “erupted
in the 1980s,” but when exactly and how PC came to be are questions let unanswered.
Since PC is a “spontaneous declaration,” Atkinson implies that PC came out o f nowhere,
an unpremeditated idea from some political entity, since he does not blame liberals in this
statement. And the implication that PC has become law is original and surprising, since
he cites no laws, nor gives any solid examples. It is difficult to believe that the ideas
behind a term such as PC, that has no real dictionary definition, can become a law.
Conservatives rely on the ambiguity that accompanies PC to make the term sound more
12
scary and distorted than it actually is. Robin Tolmach Lakofifbelieves the use o f the term
began in the 1990s: “In 1990, p. c. would have been an excellent choice for Time's word
o f the decade (if Time had such a category). For over ten years it served as the weapon o f
choice to defang what was perceived, or represented, by the right as the threatening
menace o f the left” (90-91). Conservatives use PC as a way to misrepresent ideas
generally thought o f as liberal, attempting to speak louder than the left on liberal ideas in
the university. During the 1990s, conservatives began to monopolize the media in order
to flood the public with misinformation about liberal ideologies.
Political correctness started to receive national attention during the early 1990s,
when more various definitions arose in the media. As Berman writes, “The national
debate over ‘political correctness began in the fall o f 1990 with a small, innocuousseeming article in The New York Times - and within a few months was plastered across
the covers o f Newsweek, TheAtlantic, New York, The New Republic, and The Village
Voice, not to mention the TV news-talk shows and the newspaper op-ed pages” (I). The
media began using the catch phrase political correctness to describe academic arguments
over what material was taught in the university, and each source had their own idea o f
what the word meant.
The media attention o f what occurs in the university gave national attention to
multicultural ideas, but it also created a backlash, which caused liberals and their “PC”
ideas to appear more like nagging than thought-provoking insights. Berman discusses
the overblown nature o f the media when he writes that to liberal professors
and their supporters, and to post-modern liberals who spice up their
13
teaching and writing with a few sprinkles o f race/class/gender-ism or a bit
o f world-weary deconstruction, something about the current debate is very
chilling. They see the Newsweek cover pointing a finger at the “Thought
Police,” which means themselves, and they see President Bush denounce
them, and they look around for their own allies, who turn out not to be
many[.. JIsnT something overblown about the outrage over P. C. and the
new theories and curricular debate? [...] mightn’t the real target in the
anti-P. C. campaign, as some writers have conjectured, be the heritage o f
democratic openness and social reform that dates from the sixties? (19)
Berman states that PC received a lot o f attention during the early 1990s, but that the ideas
behind the uproar about PC originated in the radical ideas o f the 1960s, such as the civil
and equal rights movements. M argaret Boyd also places PC’s current ideology around
the same era, saying “It resurfaced in feminist circles in the 1970s as a reminder o f the
dangers o f closed ways o f thinking or as a term o f humorous self-criticism. American
neoconservatives adopted the term in the early 1980s as a polemical description o f their
adversaries” (1-2). The liberals’ ideas o f the 60s and 70s shed fight on multicultural
ideas, using political correctness comically towards the various beliefs behind
multiculturalism, whereas conservatives took over the term in the 80s at some point in
order to start a McCarthy-like era in the universities and society. This new era relied on
misconceptions o f the definition o f PC, which is why I feel it is important to regroup and
discuss how PC is defined, and what it means in regards to the debate over
multiculturalism and the culture wars.
The Definitions o f Political Correctness
Conservatives attack the ideas o f multiculturalism through many facets, using PC
as their keyword for wrong doing by the liberal left. Liberals once used the term to
criticize other liberals for dogmatic thinking, but now seem to discard it because o f its
pejorative nature. Conservatives use the term to desecrate all liberal ideas. The
comparison o f how different the conservatives and the liberals define PC is something I
tackle in this section. Throughout my research, I have noticed that the conservatives
have a much stronger voice in publications, both academic and from the general media.
The general consensus o f the conservative opinions is that PC is destroying the American
university, as well as American youth. As Nola Kortner Aiex contends,
the term ‘politically correct’ has become an all-purpose pejorative epithet
conflating and condemning a number o f initiatives, such as affirmative
action in hiring and in college admissions, multicultural education,
broadening the canon o f classical texts to include women and minority
groups, protest against unpopular ideas, and changing vocabularies for
representing particular groups. (I)
Aiex points out how the term has negative connotations that involve various causes. I
can not find anything wrong with any o f the ideas presented in her definition, but to refer
to the ideas as a “pejorative epithet” allows the reader to be aware o f the complications
surrounding the term. M ost conservatives write and speak about how horrible political
correctness is, and their definitions are always negative, blaming liberals for all that is
wrong with the academy today. Berman beheves the conservatives are attempting to win
the greater public opinion, writing that
The postmodern professors gaze at their accusers, and they see bad faith.
They see conservatives who claim to be more liberal than the liberals, and
cultural critics who talk about insulating culture from politics but who
wield the literary canon like a club, knocking heads whenever their own
political preferences come under attack. And the postmodern professors
would laugh - if they weren’t ducking under a table. (21)
Conservative critics o f political correctness claim to be victims o f an ideology the liberals
15
are forcing on the universities and society, but even the conservatives cannot agree on a
unified definition because o f the ambiguous and negative connotations o f the term.
While Aiex referred to PC as a “pejorative epithet conflating and condemning”
ideas within the university, Andrew Sandlin writes that PC “is the policy on numerous
American campuses to stifle discussion deemed to threaten the sensitivity o f ‘underrepresented’ groups: homosexuals, blacks, women, the handicapped, etc.” (I). Aiex
claims PC is an umbrella term representing many ideas that cannot be confined to one
phrase. Sandlin claims PC ideas cannot be discussed without disrespecting or
“threatening under-represented” groups o f people. But the PC ideas that stifle attempts
to give respect to under-represented people within the university and culture. At least
both critics agree that the ideas behind the term political correctness concern themselves
with multiculturalism and equality for all, which are positive aspects o f politically correct
ideas that have become pejorative. Another critic Marc Berley defines PC as “the inane
but dangerous thought and speech code that threatens the free speech and intellectual
curiosity o f so many students and their teachers at colleges across the country - closing
rather than opening minds” (I). I wonder how if PC attempts to give respect to everyone
through suggesting new approaches to language it can be viewed as breaking down free
speech. In his speech Bill Lund says that “For the first time in our history, Americans
have to be fearful o f what they say, o f what they write, and o f what they think. They
have to be afraid o f using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive,
or racist, sexist, or homophobic” (I). These critics fear that non-offensive terminology
will strip them o f their power within the university and society.
16
All o f the conservative critics seem to agree that PC has something to do with
what language is appropriate in a college setting, but the opinions seem to range on what
is happening to the language o f the university. Lakoflfbelieves there is at least one
commonality with the negative connotations o f PC when she writes,
“Political correctness,” “politically correct,” and the common abbreviation
for both, “p. c ” cover a broad spectrum o f new ways o f using and seeing
language and its products, all o f which share one property: they are forms
o f language devised by and for, and to represent the worldview and
experience o f groups formerly without the power to create language, make
interpretations, or control meaning. Therein lies their terror and
hatefiilness to those who formerly possessed these rights unilaterally, who
gave p. c. its current meaning and made it endemic in our conversation.
(9 1 )
PC is all about who has the voice and power in the academy and culture. Conservatives
feel stripped o f their voice and power, and have thus discovered a blanket term (PC) to
pigeonhole liberal ideology. Conservatives attack political correctness and its
implications because it took power and control away from the right. Liberals recognize
the power struggle concerning political correctness and attempt to find different avenues
o f expression for their ideas.
While conservatives believe that PC strips them o f their power and hurts the
university system and culture, liberals agree with conservatives on how difficult it is to
define the term. Alexander Gregor o f the University o f Manitoba that “It is very difficult
to put a definition to political correctness. It is a term widely but loosely used today; but
it is too young a concept to have received the attention and standardizing influence o f the
dictionary editors. So it quite probably has a somewhat different meaning for everyone
using it” (I). A definitive definition o f PC does not exist because there is no agreement
o f what the word means; a w ord can have multiple meanings, but it is still difficult to
define even the multiple meanings o f PC. Gregor goes on to say that
political correctness is a term that has been introduced by the detractors o f
the ideas which the PC movement, as it is called, is assumed to represent;
and there hasn’t been developed a generally accepted w ord or phrase that
represents what it is the supporting forces are after. The ‘enemy’ has
therefore set the agenda for the debate. In consequence, we are left
peering into a fundamentally important social phenomenon through a
window created by fear, distrust and scorn. (3)
Political correctness represents too many ideas to pack into one term. Conservatives
recognize this notion and use the ambiguity o f PC to assign its pejorative connotations,
thus negatively affecting every idea encompassed under the umbrella o f political
correctness. Neither liberals nor conservatives are able to reach a consensus o f what
political correctness means. In line with Gregor’s ideas, Tyrone Henry writes
Quite simply, “political correctness” has no meaning in its current usage.
Supercilious in connotation, “political correctness” implies that people
who have certain views don’t have the courage o f their convictions, but
are merely being “p.c.” to please some unknown entity. It is an epithet, a
convenient catch phrase for those either indolent or just incapable of
forming a cogent argument against that with which they disagree. (I)
IfG regor is right when he beheves the “enemy” is responsible for the agenda o f political
correctness, and Henry is correct in his assumption that those who use the term PC can
not form a decent argument against the multicultural ideas that supposedly lie behind
political correctness, then I am led to believe that liberals understand what the agenda o f
conservatives in the culture wars seems to be. Why liberals do not have more o f a voice
in the PC debates is questionable, especially in the mass media. Liberals have not been
able to organize the term PC, which makes their debate weaker than conservatives who
have flooded the media with their ideas. Liberals see the power behind the ideas of
political correctness, larger issues that have more value than what the term PC means and
how it is used. Conservatives use the power o f the term PC to stifle the ideas o f liberals,
hoping no one will notice the tricks up their sleeves.
The Stakes are High
Overall, the stakes are high in the debate over political correctness for both
liberals and conservatives. Both liberals and conservatives want power and control o f the
university. Academic power and control manipulate the shaping o f the students into
citizens, and both political sides want new citizens to sway to their political side. The
two main sides o f the PC debate want power and control over the university and public
opinion, but their methods o f attaining power differ. Conservatives are more obvious
about their desire for power, overflowing the media with conservative opinions to gain
popular opinion within our culture. Liberals focus on education as their main vehicle in
the quest for control; they count on intelligence to form political opinions and ideologies.
Ultimately, both conservatives and liberals want power over the education o f not only
students, but the general public as well.
Academic control complexifies through the debate over what is at stake with the
term political correctness and its multiple interpretations. Basically, whoever controls
the political power o f the university controls education, public opinion, and society, in
that order. Education is important because it controls what is taught to the citizens and
leaders o f tom orrow’s country today. Any political facet or belief in control can
influence and persuade students to accept a way o f thinking, hopefully convincing the
student to support whatever political party is in control o f the academy. But new recruits
to political parties are not the only advantages to controlling the university system.
Although education may not directly affect public opinion, the people who
control what the public sees (TV), hears (radio), and reads generally have college
educations. Whoever influences the creators o f media while they are students in college
could influence their ideologies for life. The influence over any sort o f media opinions
directly affects how the public views cultural issues, which in turn affects our society in
general. How the public views cultural issues affects the ruling class consciousness,
which in turn affects the contents o f our country and how the government and society are
run. Political parties realize this influence, which is another reason the debates over
issues such as political correctness are so important.
Conservatives attempt to control the university and culture by negating the ideas
o f PC in order to scare people away from a sound discussion over the issues involved and
trivialize important ideas to American society. These ideas influence the public more
than liberal ideas because liberals generally do not rebuke conservative opinions in the
same forum. Liberals avoid the issues o f political correctness in the media because o f
PC ’s ambiguity. Conservatives claim that political correctness tries to regulate speech in
a country where free speech is the first Bill o f Rights. Liberals want people to think
before they speak, to be respectful o f others. Conservatives want college students and
citizens o f this country to believe that liberals are the enemy, that liberals are responsible
for putting restrictions on what people can say, which leads to restrictions on how people
can think. But most liberals are not attempting to harm anyone with language awareness;
liberals are trying to educate the masses about how certain words and speech patterns
affect everyone in this country, how powerful language can be, and how language can
help to evolve thinking. The debate over PC will not solve the issues that truly lie
underneath both the conservative and liberal viewpoints o f political correctness. As
Cornel West writes,
we know that argument and critical exchange are not the major means by
which social change takes place in the world. But we recognize it has to
have a role, has to have a function. Therefore, we will trash older notions
o f objectivity, and not act as if one group or community or one nation has
a god’s eye view o f the world. Instead, we will utilize forms o f
intersubjectivity that facilitates critical exchange even as w e recognize
that none o f us are free o f presuppositions and prejudgements. (331)
Arguments over whose ideologies are “correct” will lead our nation nowhere. No one is
completely right in his or her beliefs, and the desire for power does not help the greater
good, which I believe is the inclusion o f all viewpoints into our society. Liberals want to
shed light on the diversity o f our society by giving voices to those who have been
oppressed in the past. Conservatives view this liberal desire as an attempt to undermine
their ideologies and force liberal ideologies on those who do not have liberal views.
Regardless o f political views, all Americans must realize that we come from
multiple backgrounds and ideologies; there is no one true American. Multiculturalism
may seem to push other cultures into the mainstream limelight, when actually
multiculturahsm gives a voice to those who have never spoken before. Obviously,
listening to the multiple voices o f this country will be overwhelming at first, but it is a
necessary step for unity and cohesiveness in our culture to occur. As W est says, “the
United States has become the land o f hybridity, heterogeneity, and ambiguity. It lacks
the ability to generate national identity and has an inferiority complex vis-a-vis Europe,
and the U.S. must deal with indigenous people’s culture, including the scars and the dead
bodies left from its history” (327). In order to find a national identity, we must come
together as a people instead o f dividing ourselves into political and cultural categories.
Instead o f finger pointing and blaming others for our misconceptions o f society,
we must pull together in order for education and awareness to occur. Conservatives need
to cut down their usage o f the label political correctness as all that is wrong with the
opposing political factions and embrace change within our culture. The liberals’ job is to
bring everyone together into a forum for discussion and unity; as W est writes, “the left
should be diverse in its representations and its constituencies, but the left always has to
be an attempt to find, in the rich diversity o f the human world, some point o f moral unity
that brings us all together” (338). Political correctness is another roadblock to
cohesiveness as a country and culture, and liberals need to stand up to the accusations o f
conservatives in order for any progress to be made in the quest for unity in our culture.
The term political correctness has allowed blinders to remain in place for too long. The
pejorative connotations o f political correctness need to be abandoned by all in order for
positive discussion surrounding supposed “PC” issues to occur.
CHAPTER 3
THE LANGUAGES OF THE CULTURE WARS
The culture wars have shaped the meanings and connotations o f certain words
within the university and society. As discussed in the first chapter, the language o f the
culture wars displays or inhibits the ideas being debated. For example, the multiple
meanings o f political correctness both display the ideas o f the culture wars and also
inhibit those ideas because o f its pejorative connotations. PC is not the only phrase to
exhibit multiple meanings. In the university, the development o f multicultural awareness
brings attention to certain phrases that receive negative and unwanted meanings, such as
the notion o f feminism. During the turmoil o f the culture wars, the societal view of
feminism has evolved into a term that shuts down discussion as opposed to enhancing
conversations in the classroom.
For instance, during one o f my composition classes last fall, I assigned Adrienne
RichrS essay “Women and Honor: Some Notes on Lying,” and felt a lot o f resistance
from my class. The class could not get past the fact that Rich discusses feminism and
women’s equality in this piece, and the focus on women caused them to shut down the
discussion completely. The males in my class felt threatened by Rich’s ideas, saying
they were excluded from the discussion because Rich only seemed to talk to women. I
thought the females in my class would stick up for Rich, saying she focused on women
because she felt women had been excluded from our patriarchal society for too long. I
had no such luck. The females agreed with the males that men were excluded from
Rich’s ideas, and in today’s post-feminist society men and women are equal. I pointed
out that we have made progress, but women are still unequal in certain areas, such as
equal pay. To my disbelief, the class agreed that such issues are no longer important.
According to my fall class, women have made enough progress in equality. Out of
twelve females in my class, only one told me she enjoyed reading Adrienne Rich. Most
o f my students resisted feminist discourse, categorizing feminist beliefs as man-hating
ideas that hinder discussion. I realized then that feminism, as an aspect o f the culture
wars, has been received in a complex way by many college students. Feminism is a
subject that some students no longer feel worthy o f discussion or attention, which has
caused feminism to develop negative connotations, changing the way it can and should
be discussed in the university.
BlackEnglish has also changed because o f the culture wars, with students
referring to this form o f Enghsh as slang because o f its modem day popularity and
influence in rap music. Multiple ways exist as to how to refer to black people, such as
African-American, Afro-American, colored, or black. The most acceptable term to use is
difficult to determine when the goal is to avoid offending anyone. One specific term my
Caucasian students stay far away from in Black EngUsh is “nigger.” The power o f this
word scares my students into avoiding discussion, much like the ideas o f feminism. My
students dismiss the importance o f the discussion surrounding Black English much in the
same way they dismissed the discussion o f Rich’s essay. The taboo “N-word” shuts
down discourse involving Black EngUsh and issues, which hinders education surrounding
such important topics. I do not believe “nigger” is a word anyone should be using, but I
do think the racial rules and restrictions that apply to the term are unfair to our society.
Why are only certain people allowed to use and discuss a word in the English language?
Discussion is vital in order for complete understanding and awareness o f the nigger’s
history and future. The word should not be used in the English language, but it is utilized
by blacks with certain rules that accompany it. Respectful terminology is important to
academia and culture in order for inclusion and discussion to take place. Both feminism
and aspects o f Black English are taboo subjects in the university and vital parts o f the
culture wars because o f conservative opposition to liberal ideas. Conservatives resist the
inclusion o f feminism and Black English into the university because these subjects
promote recognition o f diversified people, thus decentralizing the power in the
university. Each needs to be broken down and examined in order to determine how each
can survive.
The Demise o f the Term Feminism
Feminism has become a bad word in some parts o f our culture today because
negative connotations have been identified w ith feminist ideas. The positive influences
of feminism have been shut down by misinformation and distortion o f ideas. At the mere
mention o f the term feminism in my composition classes, I hear groans. These groans
make me question why feminism receives the negative connotations that it does in our
society, especially when women have made real progress towards equality with men in
the last one hundred years. I do not understand why my students o f both sexes do not
25
feel appreciative towards feminism and feminist ideas. After researching how feminism
has evolved in the past century, I have come to the conclusion that the culture wars and
the subsequent misinterpretation o f feminist ideas have shaped the growing negative
connotation o f feminism. The subsequent division o f feminists into subcategories by
supporters and critics o f the term feminism diffuses the power o f feminist ideology. As
Tammy Bruce writes.
I f women can be divided, there will be no real threat to the maledominated status quo. Paint feminists as lesbians, and straight women
will stay away. Add that feminism is racist, and you can deter black
women from working with women from other communities on the truly
color-blind issues that make all women sisters - rape, domestic violence,
reproductive freedom, and male responsibility. (142)
The definitions o f the feminist opposition’s division o f feminism deteriorates the values
and goals o f feminism, and this division takes place on many levels.
Victim Feminism
A dramatic change in the meaning o f the word feminism occurred with the
creation o f the term “victim feminism,” which is a critical interpretation o f the first
outspoken feminists. Calling attention to the injustices that men have put women
through, the term “victim feminism” establishes women as victims o f our patriarchal
society. Naomi W olfcoined the term to contrast her ideas o f “power feminism:”
‘“ Victim feminism,’ according to Wolf, claims power and purity by identifying with
powerlessness itselfj)..]victim feminism has repulsed the mainstream media and ossified
women’s communities for years” (Day 2). According to “victim feminism,” women are
powerless over their ideas and fate in life, thus they are “victims” o f male oppression and
26
helpless to change any part o f society. Contrasting with “victim feminism,” “power
feminism ‘seeks power and uses it responsibly,’ ‘hates sexism without hating men,’ is
‘unapologetically sexual,’ and ‘wants all women to express their own opinions.’ Above
all, it does not whine” (Day 2). The two terms were meant to show the differences in
perception o f feminism, but “victim feminism” receives more attention than “power
feminism” because feminism looks worse when those supporting feminist ideas appear to
be whiney and powerless as opposed to gaining power and control o f themselves.
Therefore, “victim feminism” is more popular with critics who want to discredit the goals
o f feminism and trivialize feminist claims.
The idea behind victim feminism credits three major feminist books with its
development as a pejorative term, as Justus Causus writes.
Three books were central to the progressive emergence o f modem victim
feminism during the 1960s. They were Betty Friedan’s The Feminine
Mystique which was first published in 1963, and Kate M illetfs Sexual
Politics and Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch, which both appeared
on the bookshelves for the first time in 1970. These three books
established the platform for the progressive replacement o f the original
highly individualistic, ‘positive’ classical feminism with a general critique
o f men and masculinity and an incessant collective carping which
dominated the victim feminism o f the 1980s, and continues to dominate
the mainstream feminism o f the 1990s. (2)
“Victim feminism” makes all feminists seem like whining little girls who are not getting
what they want.. The purpose o f the term is to trivialize strong feminist ideas, which
Causus does by crediting Friedan, Millett, and Greer with victim feminism’s origins.
Coupling victim with feminism decreases the value o f feminism. Many men feel
threatened by being blamed for the wrongdoing in our culture, and feel women are
seeking sympathy instead o f equality by using victim feminism. Even if “the patriarchal
regulation o f female sexuality was weakened” (Causus 2), which is a major
accomplishment in the feminist movement, calling attention to women’s victim status has
caused men (and even women) to be overly defensive against feminist ideas. The ideas
o f victim feminism have not directly caused the demise o f the term feminism, but the
perception, response, and interpretation o f victim feminism’s ideas have given feminism
a bad name.
Backlash
Another contributing factor to the demise o f the word feminism is blaming
feminism for women’s problems in our culture and the academy. As Causus writes,
M odem feminism faced a serious problem - a growing number o f women
were saying that they were unhappy with things and some were attributing
this unhappiness to feminism itself. Enter Susan Faludi, and the argument
that the 1980s had witnessed a sustained counterassault on women and
women’s rights: a backlash, aimed at reclaiming ground lost to the
feminist movement, and convincing women that feminism was the cause
o f all their problems[... JFaludi claimed that the backlash was constituted
by popular ideas that were in reality myths constructed by (among others)
the media, popular culture, psychology, the New Pohtical Right and
advertising. According to Faludi, backlashes are recurring phenomena
which appear every time the women’s movement makes any progress in
the elusive search for sexual equality. (7)
The backlash, like the many definitions o f political correctness, is a myth constructed by
those people in opposition to multicultural and feminist ideas. This backlash caused
women’s rights to be viewed as trivial in society, a trait I still see today in my
composition classes. The backlash is caused by the response to feminist ideas within our
society. The reactions o f those who oppose feminist ideas turn feminists into whiny
victims, whereas feminists typically struggle to find their voices for equality. Women are
often blamed for bringing too much attention to themselves, and the construction o f the
definition o f “victim feminism” aims to diffuse the power o f feminism’s goals, namely
equality. The backlash has caused most feminists to appear as victims in the public eye.
For example, feminism in the academy has been attacked since its creation
through women’s studies. One o f the defense mechanisms o f the feminist opposition
says that feminists have too much power and influence in the university. These
accusations do not make sense because feminism is a relatively new idea that is still
developing. Any new idea in the academy is going to receive a lot o f attention, because
as Annette Kolodny states, “academics are not comfortable with rapid change” (5). New
ideas take time to intermingle with the established practices in academia. For instance,
English literature curricula has begun to incorporate feminist and minority literature, but
the same traditional novels are still repetitively taught. As an undergraduate student, I
read Joseph Conrad’s Heart o f Darkness in five different classes, whereas I only read
Toni Morrison’s Beloved once. Feminist literature remains second par to the “classics”
because feminist ideology, or more specifically equal focus on women, is still relatively
new to the university curriculum. A lot o f feminist ideas are still being worked out
within the academy and society, and because o f the varying ideas o f what should be done
to promote equality and feminist awareness, a multitude o f feminist beliefs are heard.
Some critics go so far as to blame the various feminist ideologies for scaring
people away from feminist ideas, such as Stephame Herman who writes,
Feminists soon realized they could linguistically intimidate almost anyone
in the world o f academia whose ideology differed from their
own[..^Initially, feminist censorship involved only offensive labels such
as ‘chick/ ‘babe/ or ‘toots.’ Proponents argued that one should avoid
judgmental or demeaning descriptions regarding her character, behavior or
appearance, when simply referring to a person that is female. (2)
Feminists are not trying to intimidate anyone; we just want to take the power out o f
words that are used negatively against women.
Lesbianism and Feminism
One word and idea that I hear constantly squashed in my classes is lesbianism.
Referring back to the Adrienne Rich example, the students shut down discussion because
Rich discusses lesbianism in her essay. My students felt Rich’s discussion was weakened
by her inclusion o f lesbianism into her essay. As a conservative critic, Causus believes
lesbianism and feminism are considered synonymous in the feminist movement because
“In feminist thought, lesbianism is the apex, the vanguard o f feminism” (10).
Conservatives attempt to make lesbianism synonymous with feminism; as Greta Gaard
says, “it is such a cliche that it is easy to forget: to the conservative mind, lesbianism is
the quintessence and ultimate aim o f feminism” (130). Lesbianism is not the ultimate
goal o f feminism, but the celebration o f equality amongst women obviously attracts
lesbians to the feminist movement and rightly so.
But why do people automatically reject the ideas o f feminism when the writer
proclaims her sexual preference for women and integrates that preference in her work? I
believe men do not want to be left out o f any discussion, and lesbianism threatens their
stronghold stance in the culture. In line with this idea, Gaard writes, “to the dominant
culture, the lesbian represents the ultimate threat o f feminism: a woman who is
independent o f male approval psychologically, economically, and sexually” (1 15). If
women are no longer trying to appeal to men, men feel left out o f the discussion. Maybe
when males are no longer part o f the equation, they feel rejected and resent lesbianism
because it does not include them. Men are not seen as inessential to women; women just
want to be equal to men. Sexual preference aids women in strengthening their stances in
the feminist movement, not excluding anyone. This fear o f exclusion is caused by the
misinterpretation o f feminist beliefs, like so many other misunderstandings involving
definitions.
Opponents o f feminism also use lesbianism to exclude heterosexual women from
the feminist movement. Attempting to make lesbianism synonymous with feminism
silences, even frightens heterosexual women away from feminist ideas. The right uses
the specter o f lesbianism to add further negative connotations to the term feminism.
Lesbianism should be a celebrated aspect o f the feminist movement, but we should not
consider the term synonymous with feminism as the opponents o f feminists would like.
The connotations o f lesbianism, like “victim feminism,” have been altered by the
feminist opposition in order to deter support for feminism within our culture. Opponents
o f feminism have misrepresented these terms in order to undermine the power o f the
feminist movement. N ot only have these definitions been misrepresented in language,
pronouns o f the EngUsh language are up for debate as well. Pronouns are such a part o f
everyday language usage that adapting them to treat genders equally may even alter the
perception o f gender. Feminists seek to change the way w e think about our patriarchal
culture, one o f those changes taking place in the language we use everyday.
The Language o f Feminism
Language usage is one o f the most important weapons o f the feminist movement;
as Herman writes, “women’s weapons are traditionally their tongues” (I). The
intellectual and linguistic ability o f women aids in the goal o f equality between the sexes.
Ideas spoken and ultimately put into practice receive the most criticism o f those opposed
to feminist, ideas. The academy is an intellectual playground to hash out feminist ideas,
and the strength o f feminist arguments depends on the language we use and change. As
William Satire writes, “In wiping away the undoubted masculine tilt to a thousand years
o f English, and in attempting to imbue our language with gender equality, are we going
too far too fast? Contrariwise, in making our language reflect a belated sense of fairness,
should we tell tradition-bound male chauvinists, ‘Sorry, buddy, but you can’t make an
omelet without breaking eggs’?” (I). Satire observes the speed in which solutions for
gender equality have surfaced with no one solution working thus far. There seems to be
more argument over the change o f language than conclusions. Satire also seems to be
saying that anyone involved in using the EngUsh language needs to make sacrifices in
order for changes to occur. But those sacrifices should not be seen as negative if they
promote the equahty o f all people. Changing words in the EngUsh language to be more
gender neutral and include both men and women is a major part o f the feminist
movement, and necessary in order to make any progress in equahty.
The Pronoun Debate
The most often talked about change needed to make the EngUsh language neutral
is the generic use o f he to represent both men and women. Many suggestions as to what
replace he with exist, but each has its own problems as well. According to John
McWhorter, “a bad odor has grown around this gender-neutral feint as o f late, as the
feminist revolution has led a call to eliminate words and expressions from the language
that promote the conception that the levers o f power in society are the province o f men”
(118), and rightly so, in my opinion. The pronoun he, which is used to represent both
genders when used genetically in a sentence, complicates the equality issue in language.
For example, Millar mentions how the use o f pronouns has been affected by multicultural
or gender inclusive ideas: “The constant use o f he to supposedly denote he or she
reinforces the male domination o f the world view and the world” (2). The use o f he
instead o f including both genders exemplifies the male-centeredness o f the English
language. The gender inclusive idea behind using he or she is that both genders should
be included in a sentence because one gender does not represent the other.
B ut the male domination o f our society still shows through by placing the he
before the she. As McWhorter writes, “he or she is founded upon good intentions, but
ultimately it will not do. For one thing, the man is still first. Why not she or hel But
then, two wrongs don’t make a right - why should women be first either?” (118). One
could argue for either pronoun order, but neither choice is completely inoffensive;
consequently, one gender always comes second in the pronoun he/she or she/he example.
Alternating pronouns sequences in a paper proposes an option, but this option implies the
need to keep track o f how often each is used.
Even the suggestion o f using s/he puts the pronouns in a certain gender order,
with the female s first. S/he does not seem like a complete word, as McW horter notes,
“then there is s/he, which is a complete disaster. This one makes no pretense o f being
intended for spoken language; it is as unpronounceable as the glyph that the artist
formerly known as Prince has adopted. Even in writing, however, just look at it - it’s too
darned ugly to be used as frequently as a pronoun has to be” (120). S/he looks more like
an e.e. cummings creation than a pronoun to be used for gender equality. The problem
then with the English language is that we have no gender neutral pronoun.
The he or she debate signifies that w e need to reevaluate the EngUsh language in
order to produce or adapt more gender equal language. McWhorter points out that the
pronoun debate has a limited audience and usage, saying “he or she is a construction o f
inherently Umited domain. Conscious and forced, it could never go beyond writing and
formal speech” (1 19). N o one ever bothers to check their pronoun usage in casual
conversation, but the audience is usually more immediate in a conversation, whereas in
writing and formal speech the audience consists o f many people and interpretations. The
debate over pronoun usage is important to how the feminist movement is perceived by
our society. The inclusion o f a female element in basic speech and writing aids in the
recognition and acceptance o f women. Ifw e start changing how w e talk about genders,
the hope is that thought wiU also evolve in the process. Taking the time to consider a
female presence in pronouns, without using the “generic” he, gives recognition to the
female gender. I f people are paying attention to the female equaUty in speech and
writing maybe they witi begin paying attention to female equality in society.
The pronoun debate is a minuscule part o f the changes necessary for feminist
ideas to be present in our language. I do not believe w e need to make up new words in
order for feminism to be accepted in our society, but making the terminology we
presently utilize include both genders is necessary for equality. The possibility o f
adapting words we already have to solve such problems as the pronoun argument already
exists, as McW horter believes we have a gender neutral pronoun:
The issue has been brilliantly resolved for several centuries, if only our
grammarians would wake up and realize that language is a lava lamp and
not a clockworks. English has long offered a very simple solution that
could neatly apply to both casual and formal speech, sail over the
problems o f whether men or women are to go first, and spare us the drain
on the mental battery o f parlor tricks like switching between sentences.
[...] I said that English has no originally singular gender-neutral pronoun.
It does, however, have ^presently singular gender-neutral pronoun, and
that is none other than the they, which all o f us use in this fimction all o f
the time despite the frowns o f pfescriptivists. (121)
I hear they used all the time as a singular pronoun by students, but I will admit that it
grates my nerves. I realize my annoyance with they allies me with prescriptivists, but I
do not believe I am alone. The idea o f adapting they as the gender neutral pronoun o f the
English language is sound in theory, but there are too many people who resist change in
the language, in the rules that have been taught since grade school. M ore people use they
as a singular pronoun when writing because o f the awkwardness o f he/she, she/he, s/he,
etc. I am not aware o f any gender issues when I use they, which leads me to believe that
I use it out o f convenience. McWhorter is correct; even if I do not agree with changing
the language, and T think they sounds just as awkward as he/she examples, I am already
using the pronoun to signify gender neutrality. Amazing how language changes without
even the realization o f its evolution. B ut some language changes occur with rules and
restrictions already attached. Some changes are forced upon our society through cultural
norms and acceptable behavior, such as the changes that have happened within the Black
English dialect o f our country.
The Effect o f the Culture Wars on Black English
The debates about Black English are another example o f how language involving
minorities has evolved during the course o f the culture wars. Like the feminist
movement throughout the last fifty years, Black English has received a lot o f criticism
and debate over its value and usefulness to society. An open dialogue concerning Black
English needs to occur for cultural cohesiveness and understanding to happen and the
culture wars to end. One reason discussion is difficult is that many believe Black English
should not be recognized as a separate dialect within the English language, that Black
English is merely slang. But Black English is actually a prime example o f language
evolution and usage within our culture. As McW horter writes.
Black English is in fact uniquely well suited to show the application of
what we have learned about language change, dialects, and language
structure to real-world issues. Powerfully influential on our popular
culture, spoken by a group widely distributed across the country, existing
in an ever-challenging relationship with mainstream society, and adopted
by an increasing number o f members o f other minority groups, Black
English is the nonstandard dialect all Americans have the most immediate,
edgy, and electric relationship with. (128)
36
Everyone in our society has exposure to Black English in one way or another because o f
its influence on popular culture. The words and semantics o f Black EngUsh are excellent
examples o f how language can change the view o f a minority in our society. Because o f
this exertion o f influence. Black EngUsh exemplifies changes that have been made with
racial equality since the civil rights movement through the exposure o f the dialect to our
society. Black EngUsh is the strongest and most widely used dialect in our country, and
as elegant as any other dialect, as McW horter says, “Black EngUsh - socially marginal,
melodious, in-your-face, percussive, marvelous, to be-dropping, slangy, gansta-rapping,
exotic Black English - is every bit a sophisticated as the prose o f Jane Austen” (129). A
beautiful dialect with a rich history, Black EngUsh has enriched the English language.
But some aspects o f Black EngUsh receive resistance both from within the African
American culture and without, such as how to properly address blacks.
Labels in Black EngUsh
I would like to focus on the semantics o f Black English for this chapter on the
language o f the culture wars. One aspect o f the meaning o f Black EngUsh words that
intrigues me is the acceptable and respectable way in which black people can be
addressed by other races and by themselves. Which terms are acceptable to use and by
whom, and how did those terms come to be? What signals people to the different usage
o f terms? As Lakoff notes, during the civil rights movement,
Some o f the revolutions o f the 1960's were bearing linguistic fruit. Late in
that decade the Black Panthers has reclaimed “Black,” recognizing that
the use o f terms based on euphemism (“colored,” “darky,” “Negro,”)
would necessarily imply inferiority. Only by re-appropriating and recontextualizing the word that characterized the most sahent difference
between them and the majority community could they undo centuries o f
damage. That decision was shocking: since when did a disempowered
group have the right to name itseip. That was a contradiction in terms.
Yet it stuck: by 1970, “Black” was in common use in the national media.
(91-92)
\
Blacks proclaimed the w ord’s usage starting in the 1960s, and because o f the strong
influence o f the African American culture in our society, the term is still utilized as a
respectful label. African Americans took it upon themselves to define how they wanted
to be addressed. Judith Butler states that this self-naming action is an attempt to gain
control o f their position in our culture when she writes.
I f maybe that the conceit o f autonomy implied by self-naming is the
paradigmatically presentist conceit, that is, the belief that there is a one
who arrives in the world, in discourse, without a history, that this one
makes oneself in and through the magic o f the name, that language
expresses a “will” or a “choice” rather than a complex and constitutive
history o f discourse and power. (228)
Here Butler expresses how groups that use the self-naming process stake a claim within
language that surpasses any historical context or power over those groups. In order to
gain acceptance within our culture, blacks have taken control o f Black English to show
their choice o f participation in the English language.
“Black” is not the only label blacks use in their self-naming process. African
American is a term used to signify the cultural background o f American blacks, and it is
also considered a respectful and acceptable label. “Black” seems to be the most
acceptable terminology for all to use, but there are other terms that have rules and
restrictions on who can use them, the strongest w ord being “nigger.”
“Nigger” is specifically part o f the Black English vocabulary; even those other
minorities who adopt Black Enghsh in their everyday usage generally stay away from
“nigger,” at least in the presence o f black people. According to the “rules,” only blacks
can use the word because o f the racist connotations and history o f the word.
The usage
o f “nigger” has changed since, the days o f slavery, but blacks have resisted the
incorporation o f the word into the general vocabulary o f English.
“Nigger” began as a w ord to describe black people; as Randall Kennedy writes,
“Nigger is derived from the Latinw ord for the color black, niger<[...] it did not originate
as a slur but took on a derogatory connotation over time. [...] N o one knows precisely
when or how niger turned derisively into nigger and attained a pejorative meaning” (4-5).
“Nigger” was harmless at first, merely denoting color, much like the label “black.”
Generating discussion about the negative connotations o f “nigger” is difficult because
most people refuse to approach the subject: “The claim that nigger is the superlative
racial epithet - the most hurtful, the most fearsome, the most dangerous, the most noxious
- necessarily involves comparing oppressions and prioritizing victim status. Some scoff
at this enterprise” (Kennedy 28). The discussion o f “nigger”must involve comparisons to
other hurtful epithets because to make the term the most hurtful implies the existence o f
other words that are less pejorative. M ost people are afraid to discuss such a volatile
term o f the English language because o f the effect o f the word on black people. Many a
racist will refer to blacks as “niggers,” but never directly to a black person. Even racists
recognize the hurtful and insulting connotations o f the word when it is directed at blacks.
39
B ut the usage o f “nigger” may be expanding in our culture due to its growing popularity
in American slang.
“Nigger” has become a common slang term in our country. During R. Kennedy’s
research he consulted the Random House Historical Dictionary o f American Slang to find
a definition o f “nigger” (4). Rap music has introduced “nigger” to the masses, with such
titles as “Dr. Dre s ‘The Day the Niggas Took Over,’ A Tribe Called Quest’s ‘Sucka
Nigga,’ Jaz-Z’s ‘Real Nigger,’ the Geto Boys’ ‘Trigga Happy Nigga,’ D M X ’s ‘My
Niggas,’ and.Cypress Hill’s ‘Killa Hill Nigga’” (Kennedy 43). Thus through the
influence o f rap music on those outside the African American culture, people o f all races
have begun using the word “nigger,” which exhibits the influence o f music and slang on
our culture. McW horter writes that “the slang is perhaps the least interesting aspect o f
Black EngUsh in terms o f its relationship to standard EngUsh or its impUcations for
education” (128). The “slang” w ord “nigger” is the most used slang from Black English,
and I would say the most volatile. The discussion around the word “nigger” is not
interesting because it technicaUy does not exist. Blacks and whites alike are too afraid o f
rocking the boat by discussing the restrictions surrounding the word.
Just by discussing the word “nigger,” I am breaking one o f the social norms o f the
English language. I am white, arid am breaking the semantic and culturally accepted
rules o f the word “nigger” because of my race. Three theories exist as to why myself and
anyone beside black people cannot use the word, o f which R. Kennedy discusses:
One is that the long and ugly history o f white racist subordination of
African Americans should in and o f itself disqualify whites from using
nigger. A second holds that equity earned through oppression grants
40
cultural ownership rights: having been made to suffer by being called
“nigger” all these years, this theory goes, blacks should now be able to
monopolize the slur’s peculiar cultural capital. A third theory is that
whites lack a sufficiently intimate knowledge o f black culture to use the
word nigger properly. (131-132)
There do not seem too many holes in Kennedy’s argument for the exclusion o f whites
from using “nigger,” but apparently equality o f usage does not exist regarding the word.
Racist subordination is a solid reason for not letting other races use the term “nigger,” but
why would the race that was subordinated want to continue using the word?
Kennedy’s second reason attempts to answer this question by saying blacks have
earned the ownership rights to say “nigger,” but I am not sure ownership would make me
want to use certain terms. I agree that whites and other races lack an intimate knowledge
o f blacks and African American culture, but I wonder what is so intimate about a word
that has been used to degrade blacks for centuries. The inclusion o f multiculturalism in
the university has given attention to the unfairness o f restrictions put on the usage of
“nigger.” f f multiculturalism is meant to include all races in the culture o f America,
exclusive components cannot exist regardless o f what race is excluding those
components. Ifblack people want (equality with other races, whites specifically, then
why restrict discussion and usage o f one word? Like political correctness, I feel the word
“nigger” should not be used at all in our culture. While PC is too ambiguous and multi­
faceted to be used correctly, “nigger” is too hurtful o f a term for anyone o f African
American descent to be accepted by all o f society.
The university is where the discussion o f issues surrounding Black English and
feminism take place, making it an excellent forum to interpret different ideas and theories
about multiculturalism and the culture wars. In her discussion o f the culture wars,
Patricia Williams writes, “there is no place where this particular battle has been more
visible than in universities; there is no fiercer entrenchment than the lines drawn around
the perceived property o f culture [...] It is a battle marred by ignorance and denial” (72).
M ore specifically, the classroom is the ideal arena for the political discussion o f language
change to be exchanged and determined. The clarification o f the term feminism and the
breaking down o f Black English barriers need to be examined intellectually, and the
college classroom is an excellent and appropriate forum for such give-and-take. In the
classroom, ideas can be respectfully expressed and responded to, and the research from
such exchanges can help to enrich society’s views on issues involved in the culture wars.
42
CHAPTER 4
POLITICAL PEDAGOGY IN THE CLASSROOM
Multiculturalism and minority issues have directly and indirectly changed the
composition classroom. Minority issues not only include racial or cultural ideas like
multiculturalism, but also the inclusion for gender issues and disabled persons in the goal
o f equality.' The ideas stemming from minority issues are essentially the promotion o f
equal treatment for all individuals, regardless o f any sexual, cultural, or physical
differences. One idea that affects equal treatment o f all people is political correctness.
Pohtical correctness is a common myth prevalent in the battle o f the culture wars that
students are bound to bring up in the classroom environment because o f the term ’s
ambiguity. But the myth o f political correctness does not have to be avoided in the
composition classroom. PC is ambiguous enough to be used as a tool in the development
o f student writing and thinking. Multiculturalism and multiple definitions o f political
correctness generate ideas that change the way composition can be taught and learned.
The composition classroom acts as an important battleground for the contrasting ideas o f
PC. The classroom is an excellent forum for discussion, to let ideas and opinions be
expressed without getting dismissed by those who do not agree. In addition,
composition aids in the understanding o f our language, and “language serves as an
excehent analogy for understanding how culture works” (Thurow 2). In this chapter, I
focus on how multiculturalism and other facets o f minority issues have changed the
composition classroom, how teachers can and do approach composition using the myth
o f political correctness and multicultural theories combined as tools, and what the
implications multiculturalism imposes on future composition classrooms and education.
Language Use in the Classroom
The ideology o f multiculturalism changes what teachers can express both verbally
and written in the classroom. The promotion o f different cultures, genders, or physical
differences attempts to include everyone in the classroom discussion. Since the 1990s,
language use by teachers and students has expanded because o f gender inclusive and
racially sensitive language which represent what can be respectfully said in a public
environment. Some critics o f multiculturalism beheve inclusive terminology puts
limitations on what can be said. Multiculturalism attempts to broaden awareness of
different ideas, and inclusive terminology tries to include those varying ideas in the
classroom discussion. But the limitations present a positive and necessary challenge to
members o f the university. Encouraging inclusive language in the classroom opens the
ideas o f political correctness to discussion. The “limited” terminology helps students to
understand what is limited and why concerning PC. According to Harvey Millar o f St.
Mary’s University,
PoUtical correctness is a new challenge faced by faculty. The need to
show respect for ethnic and racial plurality, as well as the need to be
inclusive o f women, poses a challenge to our use o f language and to our
actions... One may view pohtical correctness as saying the ‘right thing at
the right time’ in a highly pohticized climate. It forces individuals such as
faculty to be mindful o f their language during teaching. (2)
Classroom discussion necessitates putting thought and respect into the words spoken in
the classroom. The awareness o f what and how to speak and write in the class positively
affects the classroom environment by aiding in the development o f language skills.
Students have to think before they speak, which helps them develop their responses more
intellectually. The awareness causes teachers to face the task o f watching their own
words as well as those o f their students, which would also help teachers to develop their
responses. The goal o f the language awareness aims to broaden a way o f thinking about
and treating people with various backgrounds. I f language changes in the classroom,
ideas may change as well.
One such language change is the terminology referring to people with disabilities
that often arises in the composition classroom. Referring to someone as “differently
abled” instead o f “handicapped” has altered how some discussions occur in the
classroom. Teachers and students alike can possibly be unsure about how to refer to
certain groups o f people, which makes discussion in the class a learning experience for
all parties involved. Using new terms such as “differently abled” or using “Native
American” instead o f “Indian” attempts to discredit old stereotypes and promote positive
attention to minority groups. Some minority groups do not want the added attention,
such as Dr. Kenneth Jemigan o f the National Federation o f the Blind who writes,
“Euphemisms and the politically correct language which they often exemplify are
sometimes only prissy, sometimes ridiculous, and sometimes tiresome. Often, however,
they are more than that. At their worst they obscure clear thinking and damage the very
people and causes they claim to benefit” (I). M ore attention gets drawn to minority
groups through new terminology and euphemisms, which apparently creates a doubleedged sword o f multiculturalism by both drawing wanted and unwanted attention to
minority groups. Consideration for minority groups, however, is essential to achieve an
understanding o f multicultural ideology. The whole intent o f multiculturalism is to give
equal and fair treatment to minority groups.
Regardless o f the validity and necessity o f sensitive terminology in society,
careful use o f language is necessary in the classroom to avoid offending anyone.
Purposely offending students may be one avenue to take when trying to teach critical
writing and thinking. Carrie Cox quotes Fehx Moos, a professor o f anthropology and
East Asian Studies at the University o f Kansas as saying “A university is supposed to be
a forum for expressing new ideas and concepts. But with political correctness, too many
people are afraid o f offending someone. W e need to start by encouraging students to
think creatively and not in such rigid terms o f either this or that” (2). Instead o f blaming
PC for everything restricted in the classroom, teachers should lift those restrictions and
promote open expressions o f ideas, using whatever terminology helps students to express
their ideas. Discussing disrespectful words is necessary in order to have a better
understanding o f what makes them unfair. Discussion o f positive and negative
terminology takes the power out o f disrespectful words by unpacking the meanings and
connotations.
Changes o f language in the classroom have occurred because the classroom is
more o f a public setting than it once was. W ith open admissions to most state colleges,
diverse populations o f people who might not have had the chance before are now
attending school. The American university’s action in regards to diversified enrollment
is to create a training ground for all students, hoping to shape them into suitable citizens
for the business world. Ronald Strickland o f Illinois State University states, “The
classroom might be considered part o f the public sphere at least in that it is often seen as
a training ground for students who will eventually enter the public sphere ‘proper,’ after
preparation both vocational and civic” (2). Instead o f encouraging scholarship and the
development o f critical thinking and writing in the composition classroom, teachers are
currently training citizens to enter the “real world.” While some training is necessary in
preparing students for the job market, contemplation o f controversial issues such as
multiculturalism. and gender studies is vital in advancing critical minds.
Training the Citizen
The idea o f training citizens in the university dates back to Plato’s philosophies,
but since the emergence o f PC in the academy, the development o f good citizens has
changed into an education that develops worker bees for businesses and the government.
According to Alan Kennedy, “education as it emerges from the controversy over what is
‘politically correct’ now finds itself having to contend with business and government
over what will be allowed as ‘workplace correct’ in the academy” (27). Composition
teachers have to mold what they teach to what will be useful to students in the
marketplace o f jobs. Teachers currently instruct students on the proper, inoffensive
language acceptable to all sides o f the debate over minority awareness because teachers
are training students how to be accepted in the workplace environment. The instruction
that should be occurring ought to help students think for themselves. The academy
should be given the freedom to assist in such development, but since public awareness
has grown more concerned regarding the classroom, it seems public opinion holds more
weight than the academy.
The development o f the classroom as a public sphere has brought more public
opinion into the academy, where there is pressure to make students into Workers instead
o f thinkers. Kennedy writes, “We have perhaps arrived at a time when the nature and
degree o f political commitment o f the teacher o f writing is a matter o f public concern - at
least insofar as the turmoil over ‘political correctness’ is really an issue o f interest to the
general public and not merely something cooked up by a few academics and a
temporarily topic-starved press’’ (20). The instruction o f writing has become a public
concern because o f the media’s exposure o f multicultural ideology. Composition
teachers have to be more mindful o f their own beliefs in the classroom because the
general public is paying more attention to what occurs in the classroom. The public is
now more concerned with how much money goes into an education compared to what
job develops because o f a college degree, especially now with the threat o f war and an
unstable economy. Ideas o f multiculturalism have changed the language o f the
classroom into a more respectful and all-encompassing learning environment, molded it
into a public sphere, and begun training the students to become workplace citizens.
Knowing all these factors, how can composition teachers adapt to the evolution?
48
Theoretical Approaches to the Classroom
Composition teachers need to conceive o f new approaches to the classroom. The
first transition that needs to occur is a paradigm shift, not only for the teachers but also
for the students. Harvey Millar writes, “The reality is that traditional educational
paradigms must be challenged and changed where necessary” (3). The traditional
paradigm sees that the students Ieam the “basics” o f education; for example, in a
traditional English curriculum, students study such authors as Shakespeare, Keats,
Chaucer, but do not lend attention to female or minority authors. Those challenges to the
traditional paradigms must take place in our multicultural society in order for students to
understand issues surrounding multiculturalism. The difficult part o f this process is
developing a method to shift traditional paradigms.
Changes must begin at the onset o f the class. The first class meeting should be an
introduction o f multiculturalism and gender studies to the students, letting them know
that all opinions will be respected and discussed. StricMand suggests that “The walls o f
the classroom must be broken down in order to make it possible for knowledges from
other discourses to intervene, and to make the knowledges, rhetorics, and literacies
produced in a particular course available to engage other discourses” (“Pedagogy” 3).
The “walls” that need to be broken down include preconceived notions about how the
classroom should be run. StricMand believes teachers should break down the barriers
between teachers and students by making students aware o f teachers’ research interests,
identifying terms and jargon with the students, and raising “issues o f accountability in
49
collective rather than individualistic terms” (“Pedagogy” 3). By involving the students in
the composition world o f research, terminology, and accountability, the students can get
a glimpse into the ideas behind compositional theory and how those ideas affect students.
A conflict can arise when the composition teacher decides to introduce new
knowledge such as multiculturalism into the classroom. According to Strickland, in the
classroom “students are not really learning anything new. They are only adding to,
reinscribing, and reaffirming what they already know; the ‘truths’ o f the dominant
ideology o f our society” (2). Students do learn in composition classes, especially if
critical thinking is promoted by the teacher. By offering multiple viewpoints, the
students may be exposed to new ideas or various, ways to look at an issue. I f as
composition teachers we are attempting to offer a new paradigm by breaking down the
barriers between teachers and students, what good will it do if the students do not Ieam
anything new? Strickland suggests the teacher “should adopt a confrontational stance
towards students, and a critical, skeptical stance toward the subject matter; teachers
should avoid posing as mentors to their students and champions o f their subjects”
(“Confrontational” 2). The teacher should let his or her viewpoint be known, but present
these viewpoints as equal to the students’ opinions.
The teacher obviously holds the authority in the classroom, but that authority
should not be forced on the students by the teacher’s opinion. For example, in one o f my
composition classes, I had a student who wrote a pro-Confederate Flag paper that really
upset me. He thought the Confederate Flag represented unity in the southern United
States and should be frown in pride o f that unity. He went so far as to say that blacks
50
should accept the flag because it represents their history during the Civil War, which is a
symbol this student thought blacks should be proud of. I had no idea how to approach
this student. The grade o f the paper could not be based solely on my disagreement with
his opinion. I searched for gaps in his argument where he did not include support, but
there were few places. I assigned a B for the paper because o f grammatical errors and
how the points added up, but I still believed it was too high for what I thought was a
racist opinion.
He gave me permission to discuss the ideas he presented in the class because I did
not want him to feel threatened, but I felt the subject begged for discussion. He agreed,
and we had an excellent class discussion on racial issues and the value o f certain symbols
in the American culture. I confronted the Confederate Flag issue in class without my
taking a stance because I knew the other students would take the opposite stance o f the
author. He thanked me for handling the paper’s ideas as I did, and even mentioned that
the class brought up issues he had not thought o f when composing the paper. His opinion
regarding the flag changed, and he was able to see what others thought o f his ideas
without him feeling threatened or ashamed o f how he thinks. I did not plan on using
confrontational or oppositional pedagogy in that situation; by confronting the student
personally and in class, and allowing the rest o f the class to assume the oppositional
stance, I was able to see how the tw o pedagogical ideas worked out in practice. I now
believe a confrontational or oppositional approach to pedagogy might be the method
necessary to shifting traditional paradigms in the classroom.
Confrontational pedagogy offers an approach to composition that introduces the
students to controversial ideas and lets those ideas develop in the classroom and students’
writing. It demands that “students must be confronted as intellectuals, rather than
patronized as inferiors” (Strickland, “Confrontational” I). In order to understand the
concepts o f multiculturalism in the classroom, students must be viewed as having their
own opinions about controversial issues, and those opinions must be respected. The
teacher’s opinions remain valid, but should not been seen as absolute: “In order for
knowledge to be produced, rather than merely reproduced, the teacher must resist the
students’ attempts to defer to the teacher as the authoritative dispenser o f absolute
knowledge” (Strickland, “Confrontational” 4). The teacher o f composition should let his
or her opinion be known in the class, but should inform students that his or her opinion is
not the only one in existence. Teachers should encourage students to find their voices
and opinions in regard to controversial material like multiculturalism, but also encourage
students to see all points o f view when forming their opinions. Confrontational pedagogy
encourages students to discuss all aspects o f controversial material, much like the
methodologies o f oppositional pedagogy.
Oppositional pedagogy steps away from the controversial material o f
multiculturalism and reviews the various ideas in opposition to one another. Adam Katz
bases his theory o f oppositional pedagogy on two principles: “first, abstraction (not
abstention) from the dominant culture; second, material confrontation with the ruling
class and its institutions within the structure” (211). Instead o f confronting students with
multicultural ideas, oppositional pedagogy sets opposing ideas against each other and
explores the meanings and implications produced by all sides. Various theorists have
attempted using oppositional pedagogy in their classrooms:
Marxists and feminists have called for an oppositional pedagogy which
can understand the way the concept o f knowledge is implicated in the
reproduction o f the dominant ideology, and which can empower students
to resist the neoconservative and corporate-sector demand for an
educational system that shapes students to fit the needs o f a capitalist and
patriarchal society. (Strickland, “Confrontational” 2)
By exposing various beliefs, theories, and the minority viewpoint within the dominant
culture, I believe a paradigm shift will occur in the students exposed to the new ideas.
Working through their own beliefs and comparing them with the ideas they are exposed
to helps students to Ieam how other people think. When ideas and beliefs are challenged
and debated, more ideas and beliefs have the opportunity to open students’ minds:
A problem with both oppositional pedagogy and confrontational pedagogy arises
when teachers’ opinions may contrast with their students or colleagues. As stated before,
teachers’ opinions should not be regarded as sacred and untouchable; teachers’ opinions
are just as valuable as the students’ views. B ut as Sarah Baumgartner Thurow says,
“Adding more ‘politically correct’ courses does no good because the professors in these
courses are still able to avoid confronting their opponents” (I). This statement shuts
down the possibility o f discussing varying ideas in the classroom. The students may
become the opposition in the classroom, and the opposition could possibly assist both the
teacher and students in developing.their arguments. Teachers and students alike learn
form opposing ideas because they not only have to develop their own opinions, but they
also have to be aware o f what others think. The question that then arises is how to
present class material involving multicultural ideas that will promote confrontational and
53
oppositional thinking.
One theoretical approach to the composition classroom that may answer this
question is critical pedagogy. The goal o f any composition course should be critical
pedagogy, which Henry A. Giroux defines as a pedagogical theory that “self-consciously
operates from a perspective in which teaching and learning are committed to expanding
rather than restricting the opportunities for students and others to be social, political, and
economic agents” (9). Critical pedagogy combines the ideas behind oppositional and
confrontational pedagogy, offering to expand ideas instead o f hinder them. Critical
pedagogy may help the teacher offer opinions in the class and be open to the opinions o f
students and colleagues by developing critical thinking behind their opinions. The
conflicting ideas o f multiculturalism and gender studies could be taught, analyzed, and
discussed in a critical pedagogy classroom. Realizing what theories might best be
appropriate to confront multiculturalism in the classroom, the dilemma then arises as to
how to apply the theory to practice.
One such answer to the dilemma may be to teach multicultural ideas as themes in
the composition classroom. According to Kennedy, “far from being an inoculation
against success in late capitalist America, classes founded on resisting the dominant
ideology might well be keys to success in it” (25).The presentation o f theories that do not
dominate our culture, such as multicultural, gender-inclusive, or other issues discussed
by the minority may enlighten student awareness o f various ideas. Theme-oriented
composition classrooms aid in not only conveying new ideas to students, but also helping
students to understand known concepts more thoroughly.
54
For example, feminism is one aspect o f gender studies that can be used as a theme
in composition classes. Rae Rosenthal writes about how she teaches a composition
course “which focuses, in terms o f content, on feminist issues in rhetoric and which, in
its pedagogical approach, is deliberately and openly feminist” (139), Focusing on
feminism as the class theme helps her students in understanding feminist language as
well as their own language: “ as the class reads and becomes more educated about
discourse communities and the effect o f gender on these communities, I have noticed that
students become more aware o f their own language and more skilled in the manipulation
o f that language” (140). By using a different theoretical basis than most students are
accustomed to, Rosenthal assists in the development o f student writing and thinking
using feminist theory. Critical thinking, which involves students in their writing, is the
goal o f theme-oriented composition courses.
Cultural Studies and Marxism are two other approaches to theme-oriented
classrooms available to composition teachers. Raymond A. Mazurek says that “Cultural
Studies offers to teachers in the 1990s some o f the same attractions that Freirean
pedagogy offered in the 1960s and subsequent years: the hope o f engaging students in
critical reflection on generative issues that are simultaneously o f great public significance
and personal resonance” (173). Mazurek attempts to help his composition students to
think critically. Donald Lazere also has the same goals when he writes “our primary aim
should be to broaden the ideological scope o f students’ critical thinking, reading, and
writing capacities so as to empower them to make their own autonomous judgments on
opposing ideological positions in general and on specific issues” (190). The goal o f any
55
theme-oriented class based on minority-oriented ideas should be to aid students in the
critical thinking o f controversial subject matter. Focusing on the composition classroom,
the presentation o f controversial material should aid in the development o f student
writing.
A paradigm shift presented to aspiring composition writers may create resistance
in students. According to Katz, presenting multicultural ideology in the classroom
reflects “a problematization o f the student’s understanding o f what ‘belongs’ in a writing
class (or any class for that matter), and hence are directly connected to an implicit crisis
in legitimacy and authority which can be made extremely productive for the purposes o f
the class” (216). Questioning what belongs in a composition classroom is the first step in
resistance, and a healthy step if interesting discussion and writing are the desired
products o f the class. Resistance furthers the development o f not only students’ written
voices but their verbal abilities as well. Katz goes on to say that “The students’
resistance can be used to inquire into all o f the interests and ideologies bound up in their
everyday fives, as well as the relation between these interests and ideologies and their
placement within the institution o f the academy” (216). Student resistance to
multicultural ideas should be welcomed in a composition classroom because such
resistance will fuel discussions and writing produced in the. class.
Resistance should not be mistaken for an attempt at converting the students to the
teacher’s beliefs. In her feminism-based composition course, Rosenthal says, “my goal
within the classroom is not to convert each student; I aim rather to educate each student
about writing, about discourse, about power, and about the distribution o f that power”
56
(151). Student awareness o f gender studies and multicultural ideology should be a goal
in composition courses, not an attempt to persuade students to follow the teacher’s
beliefs.
Communication must be an open component to the composition classroom, and
each student must remain open to conflicting ideas. As Thurow says, “The recent murder
o f an abortion doctor may serve as an image for the seriousness o f this issue; for if it is
no longer possible to use speech to resolve or at least contain our different
understandings o f good and evil, then the only means left is violence” (3). The escalated
discussion o f ideas into violence is a threat in the politically aware classroom, but the
teacher and students must contain any such threat through open discussion and respect
for one another for the well being o f the class.
In order to achieve a composition classroom open to the ideas multiculturalism,
students and teachers alike must shift their paradigms to achieve understanding and
acceptance o f various ideas. As educators, w e must use the current language of
multiculturalism and gender studies to enlighten students and each other, aiming to
reshape the public sphere where if people can not at least get along, they will begin to
have a better understanding o f one another. Students need to realize that while the debate
over multicultural ideas holds importance, the articulation o f said ideas are as important
as the ideas themselves. As Kennedy writes,
we need to consider the problems o f teaching politics through writing, and
to try to conceive o f a rhetorical strategy and related writing pedagogy that
does not insist on ideological compliance, that teaches students something
fundamental about how to enter ongoing conversations (verbally or in
writing), and that is not politically irrelevant or inert. (21)
One common pedagogical theory does not yet exist for minority studies, but a multitude
o f possibilities are available to teachers and students alike, allowing educators to work
out theories through practice. Through the different pedagogical theories, whether it be
confrontational, oppositional, or using multicultural and gender based ideas as themes in
the classroom, the ultimate goal is to help students become better, more informed writers
58
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
One absolute definition o f political correctness will ever be agreed upon within
our culture. Everyone uses the term differently, which causes the term to remain
ambiguous. The pejorative connotations o f PC remains as either a joke for liberals or an
accusation for conservatives. Should liberals continue to dismiss accusations o f political
correctness? I believe liberals should stand up to conservative accusations o f destroying
free speech and thought-policing, and defend the underlying ideas o f multiculturalism
and verbal inclusion that have become pejorative in conservative circles. The ambiguity
o f political correctness is hindering university education for students in this country. By
educating students on the ideas that make up conservative accusations o f political
correctness, students can decide for themselves how to use that knowledge and
incorporate it into their national identities as citizens. As educators, we should focus on
the best possible education and presentation o f knowledge for students, instead o f
arguing and fighting over who has the most control over the college curriculum.
One way to present well-rounded knowledge to the academy is through the
language already used in the culture wars. W e must promote the inclusion o f notions o f
multiculturalism, feminism, and African American studies in order for education to occur
and ignorance to diminish. W e must do away with the misconceptions o f feminism, such
as “victim feminism/’ the backlash against feminism, and the connection between
59
lesbianism and feminism. W e must fight against the exclusions such words as “nigger”
promote in Black English in order to gain a full understanding o f African American
culture. A respectful and acceptable discourse must have an open forum in order for
notions to be shared and knowledge to be gained.
Academia is the perfect forum for such discussion, since it is a place where
learning is expected to take place in all disciplines. The classroom is the perfect arena
where ideas can be exchanged without fear, harm, or disrespect. W e need to awaken
students to their belief systems and help them to shift those paradigms in order to see the
bigger picture o f the world in which w e five. W e all have some sort o f stance politically
and ideologically, and we should not be afraid o f those stances in the classroom. I have
found that while teaching, if f express my opinions and ideas to the class, students are
more likely to express their own ideas. I f I find my students tend to agree with my
because they think that is what I am looking for in discussion, I take the opposite view in
order for them to experience all sides to an issue. I find the classroom to be an excellent
starting point to educate on the different cultures that make up our society.
Academia and the American society need to adapt to the multiple cultures that
exist within our society. As Barbara Ehrenreich writes, “in the face o f an increasingly
global society, which is now more than 20 percent so called minorities, the old
monocultural education will not do” (334). In fight o f this fact, we need to establish the
university as an open forum for discussion. As educators and members o f American
society, we cannot shut down any idea regardless o f how it affects other people. We
must be free to discuss our thoughts without the fear o f being “wrong,” but we need to
60
express our thoughts in a respectful way to others. By supporting and promoting
reactions to the many issues involving multiculturalism, feminism. Black English, and
even the fluctuating ideas o f political correctness, w e can diminish harmful and hateful
ideas through knowledge and education. M ost o f the misconceptions about the issues I
have discussed are based on ignorance, and the university is the best forum to promote
knowledge to fight the ignorance o f our society.
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aiex3Nola K ortner “Politically Correct on Campus.” Eric Clearinghouse on
Reading3English and Communications Digest #108. Eric Digest.
16 September 2002 <http://eric.indiana.edu/ieo/digests/dl08.html>.
Atkinson3Philip. “Political Correctness.” A Study o f Our Decline. 16 February 2002.
<htttp://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm>.
Berman3Paul. “Introduction: The Debate and Its Origins.” Debating P. C.
Ed. Paul Berman. N ew York: Laurel Trade3 1992. 1-26.
Berley3Marc. “Why ‘Political Correctness’ Cannot B e Correct.” Argos L I (1998).
16 February 2002 <http://www.gofast.org/argos-spring-1998/
article2.htm>.
Blazquez3Agustin3 and Jaums Sutton. “Political Correctness: The Scourge o f Our
Times.” NewsMax.com (2002). 13 January 2003 <http://www.newsmax.
com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml>.
Boyd3Margaret. “Political Correctness Part o f Cultural, Political Crisis3 says
English Professor.” University Communications, University o f Guelph.
16 February 2002 <http:www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/
96-05-01/lunar.html>.
Bruce3 T a m m y The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and
Free Minds. New York: Forum3 2001.
Butler, Judith. Bodies That M atter. New York: Routledge3 1993.
Causus3 Justus. “M odem Feminism: A Guide to the Ideology and the Literature.”
PINC. (1997). 13 January 2003 <http://www.cycad.com/cgibin/pinc/apr97/justus:html>.
Cox3 Carrie. “Universities Threatened by Political Correctness.” Student Publications
Inc., Kansas State University. 16 Feb. 2002
<http://www.spub.ksu.edu/ISSUES/v099B/SP/nl31/cam-moose-cox.html>.
Day3 Susie. “Fire With Fire3 The New Female Pow er and How It Will Change the 21st
Century.” Zmag. (1994). 24 February 2003
<http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/june94day.htm>.
Eagleton3 Terry. The Idea o f Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
62
Ehrenreich3Barbara. “The Challenge for the Left.” Debating P C.: The Controversy
Over Political Correctness on College Campuses. Ed. Paul Berman. New York:
Laurel, 1992. 333-338.
Gaard3 Greta. “Anti-lesbian Intellectual Harassment in the Academy.” Antifeminism
in the Academy. Eds. Veve Clark et al. N ew York: Routledge3 1996. 115-140.
Giroux3Henry A. “Who Writes in a Cultural Studies Class? Or3W here is the
Pedagogy?” Left Margins: Cultural Studies and Composition Pedagogy.
Ed. Karen Fitts and Alan W. France. Albany: State University o f New
Y orkPress3 1995. 3-16.
Gregor3 Alexander D. “The Canadian University and Political Correctness: A Historical
Perspective.” Arob@se. 2.1. (1997). 5 November 2002
<http://www.arobase.to/v2_nl/gregor.html>.
Henry3 Tyrone. ccXVhafs the Real Definition o f ‘Political Correctness’?” 28 Oct. 1994.
13 January 2003 <http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/oldwildcats/fall94/October/october2831994/02_4_m.html>.
Herman3 Stephanie. “Speaking in Code.” PINC. 1.2. (1996). 13 Jan. 2003.
<http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/apr97/herman.html>.
Jemigan3Dr. Kenneth. “The Pitfalls of Political Correctness: Euphemisms Excoriated.”
National Federation o f the Blind. (1999). 16 Feb. 2002
<http://www.blind.net/bpg00005.htm>.
Katz3 Adam. “Pedagogy, Resistance, and Critique in the Composition Class.” Left
Marvins- Cultural Studies and Composition Pedagogy. Ed. Karen Fitts and Alan
W. France. Albany: State University o f New York Press3 1995. 209-218.
Kennedy3 Alan. “Politics, Writing3Writing Instmction3 Public Space, and the English
Language.” I -eft Margins: Cultural Studies and Composition Pedagogy. Ed.
Karen Fitts and Alan W. France. Albany : State University o f N ew York Press3
1995. 17-36.
Kennedy3Randall. Nigger: The Strange Career o f a Troublesome W ord. New York:
Pantheon Books3 2002.
Kolodny3 Annette. “Paying the Price o f Antifeminist Intellectual Harassment.”
Antifeminism in the Academy. Eds. Veve Clark et al. New York: Routledge3
1996. 3-34.
63
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. The Language W ar. Berkeley: University o f California Press,
2000
.
Lazere, Donald. “Teaching the Conflicts about Wealth and Poverty.” Left Margins:
Cultural Studies and Composition Pedagogy. Ed. Karen Fitts and Alan W.
France. Albany: State University o f N ew Y ork Press, 1995. 189-205.
Lind, Bill. “The Origins o f Political Correctness.” An Accuracy in Academia Address.
George Washington University. 10 July 1998. 13 January 2003 <http://www
geocities.com/bobmeyer_us/lind.html>.
Mazurek, Raymond A. “Freirean Pedagogy, Cultural Studies, and the Initiation of
Students to Academic Discourse.” Left Margins: Cultural Studies and
Composition Pedagogy. Ed. Karen Fitts and Alan W. France. Albany: State
University o f New York Press, 1995. 173-188.
McWhorter, John. W ord on the Street: Debunking the Myth o f a “Pure” Standard
English. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, 1998.
Millar, Harvey. “The Challenge o f Teaching in 90’s: Broadening the W orld View.”
St. M ary’s University. 2 Oct. 2002
<http://huskyl.stmarys.ca/~hmillar/wrldview.htm>.
Neumann, Anne Waldron. “In Praise o f Pohtical Correctness.” 13 January 2003
<http ://hbertyvictoria. org. au/doc5/Waldron-Ne>.
“Political Correctness.” Xrefer. America Online. 16 Feb. 2002
<http ://www/xrefer. com/entry1596064>.
The President’s Task Force on Multicultural Education and Campus Diversity.
“The Challenge o f Diversity and Multicultural Education.” A reY ou
Politically Correct? Debating America’s Cultural Standards. Eds. Francis J.
Beckwith and Michael E. Bauman. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1993. 73-89.
Rieff, David. “Therapy or Democracy? The Culture Wars Twenty Years On.”
W orld Policy Journal 15.2 (1998). 24 Jan. 2003 Expanded Academic ASAP.
Rosenthal, Rae. “Feminists in Action: H ow to Practice What We Teach.” Left
Margins- Cultural Studies and Composition Pedagogy. Ed. Karen Fitts and
Alan W. France. Albany: State University o f New York Press, 1995. 139-156.
64
SajBre, William. “On Language: Genderese.” The New York Times O 1QQQY 16
February 2002 <http://www.nytimes.coni/library/magazine/niilleniuni/m2/onlanguage.html>.
Sandlin, Andrew. “Political Correctness and the Coming Culture W ar.” Christian
Evangelistic Endeavors. 16 February 2002
<http://www.foremnner.eom/foremnner/X0369_P.C.the_Coming_Cul.html>.
Strickland, Ronald. “Confrontational Pedagogy and the Introductory Literature Class.”
Practising Theory in Introductory College Literature Courses. Eds. James
Cahalan and David Downing. Urbana: NCTE, 1992. 2 Oct. 2002
<http ://www. enghsh.ilstu.edu/Strickland/confront. html>.
— . “Pedagogy and Pubhc Accountability.” Class Issues: Pedagogy, Cultural Studies
and the Public Sphere. Ed. Amitara Kumar. New York: New York University
Press, 1997. 2 Oct. 2002
<http://www.enlgish.ilstu.edu/strickland/account.html>.
Teachout, Terry. “Dead Center: the Myth o f the Middle.” National Review 44.21
(1992). 24 Oct. 2002 Expanded Academic ASAP.
Thurow, Sarah Baumgartner. “Illusory Compromise.” First Things. 35. (1993).
8 Dec. 2002 <http://www.leadem.com/ftissues/ft9308/reviews.thurow.html>.
West, Cornel. “Diverse New World.” Debating P C : The Controversy Over Pohtical
Correctness on College Campuses. Ed. Paul Berman. N ew York: Laurel, 1992.
326-332.
Williams, Patricia. “Talking about Race, Talking about Gender, Talking about How
We Talk.” Antifeminism in the Academy. Eds. Veve Clark et al. New York;
Routledge, 1996. 69-94.
atssaaeautis:^:.
MONTANA STATE
k